The “What If?” Gambit

When I discuss various issues relating to safety and security, I generally take the view that we should have the minimum security needed to provide an effective defense. I also take into account the impact of such measures on rights and liberties while also giving positive and negative consequences their just due. This approach, obviously enough, means that my position on specific security/safety measures can be argued against on these various grounds.

Since I am against the use of full body scans and pat downs (at least as they are currently implemented), one way to argue against me is to consider the dire consequences of the dreaded “what if” scenario. “What if”, says the concerned person, “the scans are stopped and a terrorist takes out a plane with an underwear bomb that the scanners would have stopped?” Put in argument form, the idea is that the scanners and pat downs should be used because they have a chance of stopping such an attack. The added safety presumably overrides concerns about privacy rights, government intrusiveness, and potential harms to passengers (such as being humiliated in various ways).

On the face of it, “what if” scenarios are a legitimate consideration when it comes to security and safety. So, for example, when considering whether deep water drilling should be allowed or not, we should consider what would happen if another well failed. As another example, when deciding whether to lock my office door or not, I should consider what would happen if a dishonest person walked by and saw my computer and printer behind an unlocked door.

While “what if” scenarios are worth considering, merely presenting a dire possible consequence does not automatically justify a practice. After all, the likelihood of the dire consequence needs to be considered as does the likely effectiveness of the method and the cost it imposes.

Naturally enough, the assessment needs to done on the basis of a consistently applied principle or set of principles. Naturally, the principle of relevant difference can be used to justify differences-but this requires showing how the differences actually make a difference.

In the case of scans, they could possibly prevent an underwear bomb from being brought aboard. There is a chance that such an attack might be tried again. As such, there is a non-zero chance that the scanners could prevent harm being done. However, the odds of such an attempt are most likely extremely low. After all, there has been only one attempt.

The body scans and pat downs clearly infringe on basic privacy rights such as the right/liberty not to be touched and the right/liberty not to have people see one naked. While this rights can be justly violated or set aside, this requires proper justification. There is also the fact that there have been some rather unpleasant incidents (such as the urine bag incident and images being saved from the scans) that indicate that these methods are not without their costs. And, of course, there is the actual cost of the machines used in scanning.

Weighing the harms and benefits seems to lead to the conclusion that the scanners and pat downs are not justified.

However, the “what if” gambit can still be played. “What if the scans stop and a plane gets blown up! What would you say then, Dr. cost-benefit analysis?”

What I would say is, of course, that such an incident would be horrible. However, I must wonder what sort of principle the person making the “what if” gambit is using. If the principle is that we can violate rights and expend $170 million+ to provide some possible security/safety against a specific sort of very unlikely occurrence, then I would hold the person to applying the principle consistently.

After all, there are plenty of likely threats and dangers out there that could be reduced by infringing people’s rights or spending $170 million. For example, the right to drive cars could be taken away in the interest of safety (“What if we didn’t ban cars and someone got run over! What would you say then?”). People would then have to walk or bike (or use other means) which would also make them healthier. Many people die each year from traffic incidents and even more die from poor health. This would address both threats. Also, the economy could be boosted by selling bikes, skates, running gear and other such things. Redoing the infrastructure and creating more public transport would also create jobs.

As another example, we know that oil wells can blow up, kill people and create environmental problems ( “What if an oil well blows up, kills people and pollutes the sea! What would you say then?”). If we are justified in using scanners to try to prevent an underwear bomb attack, then we would seem to be far more justified in banning oil wells and replacing them with alternative energy sources.

As a third example, consider guns. Sure, people have a right to keep and bear arms. However, look at all the gun deaths. “What if someone took a gun and killed some people! What would you say then?” Since no one has been killed by an underwear bomb and lots of people have been killed by guns, if we can infringe on rights to protect people from the incredibly low possibility of an underwear bomb, then we surely can infringe on rights to protect people from guns.

As a final example, we could keep people safer by putting cameras everywhere and on everyone. “What if someone committed a crime that could have been prevented by cameras! What would you say then?” While this would violate the right to privacy, if security trumps privacy then this would seem to be fine.

Naturally, I am willing to tolerate oil wells (for now), I am willing to tolerate cars, I like guns, I’m against body scans, and I’m against living in a panopticon. However, this is because I contend that it is acceptable to tolerate a degree of risk in order to maintain rights.

And some of those will choose to drive drunk and end up wound around a telephone pole. Or splattered with the remains of some innocent non-drinker. But if we’re lucky, those people will get caught up in a sobriety checkpoint.

“North Texas lawmakers say they will renew efforts to introduce a sobriety checkpoints bill in the new legislative session, after a federal agency rated Texas among the worst states in preventing alcohol-related traffic fatalities. ”

DUI was a nationwide problem long before “illegal aliens” became a big issue.
But RI’s irrelevant to Texas’ problems and eventual choice of solution, really. What is at issue is whether Tex. will opt for DUI checkpoints to save Texas lives (whether the deaths are caused by illegal aliens or drunk Texans–of whom, I hear, they have their share 🙂 ).

How about some sort of federal vetting system for citizens, maybe tied to our passports, where you submit to some sort of periodic ‘risk’ screening and, once approved, can travel with just the old-school metal detector pass and luggage x-ray?

“Periodic” screening sounds like a good additional step. What would it entail? How often would it take place, and how much would it intrude on one’s privacy? Would it take place often enough to take into account the speed with which one (esp. the more pliable among us) can change one’s ideological viewpoint?

We did have a program called CLEAR or CLR or something like that. It cost a couple hundred bucks a year. The company providing it went out of business but as I understand it, the underlying technology is in the process of transferring to another end-consumer company. The old program existed before the current issues with TSA. The privacy and profiling advocates will likely still kick up a storm when it comes back since it’s “exclusionary” and it still boils down to profiling at some level.

Plus it will never stop a sleeper candidate. IIRC, the original 9/11 bombers had clean records, not to mention the sleeper/converted agents that have managed to infiltrate our military to some degree. Depending on the frequency of the periodic risk screening, which has its own costs/overhead, you may get some value in being able concentrate more attention on the riskier candidates. Of course, there are still privacy issues in the risk screening. Will you need a DoD clearance to fly in an commercial airplane?

“After all, there has been only one attempt.”
Don’t forget the warnings in the standard mutual fund prospectus. “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.” Recall that there were “no” incidents of terrorists flying planes into skyscrapers before 9/11.

No, but there were plenty of other ‘radical Muslim’ terrorist attacks before 9/11. No white autistic boys commited terrorist acts in the past but should we still be worried? No cats have commited terrorist acts in the past but should we still be worried? I think we all know who the enemy is.

I’m not certain about regulations for animals shipped on commercial flights. If they don’t require scanning I’d be surprised/ disappointed. I’d imagine one can store a pretty powerful explosive device in the belly of a potbelly pig.

I would hope your concern goes as far as brpwn autistic children whose autism hasn’t been diagnosed.

“What if someone took a gun and killed some people! What would you say then?” Since no one has been killed by an underwear bomb and lots of people have been killed by guns, if we can infringe on rights to protect people from the incredibly low possibility of an underwear bomb, then we surely can infringe on rights to protect people from guns.”

That misses my point. If the principle is that rights can be violated to gain any tiny increase in security, this would justifying banning guns in general. I’m obviously aware that guns are not allowed on planes.

Would it be correct to assume that the issue comes down to what is considered “any tiny increase in security”. Guns are not allowed on planes because, apparently, in that specific environment (200-300 passengers in an airborne cocoon , we’re not talking about a “tiny increase in security” but, rather, an “significant increase” in security. If that is the case, might not the same assumption that applies to banning guns (creates a significant increase in security) apply to scans and patdowns?

Last week I passed through the Frankfurt, Germany, Airport on my way back to duty in Afghanistan. I saw that German security was doing pat-downs. I don’t know if they were doing 100% pat-downs, but in any case when I passed through the medal detector, the alarm went off. I believe it was my watch. So I was moved to a secondary search area inside a low-walled booth where a male security officer did a pat down and another sweep with a hand-held metal detector.

Alas. The spirit was not moved. I envisioned are Founding Fathers of demigod status, demanding freedom from English conscription and crushing taxes. Washington mustering his troops at Valley Forge. Surely a pat-down should entice my revolutionary spirit. Was I even a real American anymore? No outrage, no images of Nazi Germany dancing through my head. Had I become so weak that I’d even vote for Jimmy Carter if he decided America needed yet another bad president?

Oh, but wait. There is always that man of letters that one can clamor to if one wishes to see totalitarianism in every motive, in each new rule. especially when one can’t really find the material, negative impact of that rule. It’s all about ideals, don’t you know. Orwell.

1984.

What a great year. And what a great book for the rabble-rouser. At any moment I can make any law look like it was penned by a fascist, simply by calling out that famed year.

1984.

My 30 second pat-down was over. And none too soon. Because sure, surely I say, had it lasted one second longer, I’d have been whisked off to a concentration camp and had my knee caps drilled. Or I’d have been goose-stepping to the coffee shop just on the other side of the screening area. All my American values dashed, succumbing to inglorious junk-grabbing. And all because terrorism is winning.

At last, after that long 30 seconds, I cast off my Thought Crimes, and skipped–no shiny black boots to slow me–to grap a hot cup of joe. Freedom never tasted so good….

One small step from patdown to totalitarianism. 🙂 I mentioned Schipfol in one of my posts . Screen, patdown (and I didn’t even set off the detector). My thoughts? “C’mon. I wanna get to the plane. I wanna get back home. “Otherwise–no big deal. Certainly not as big a deal as the uzi- carrying security police stationed all over Fiumicino abt.6years ago. No pat downs. But plenty of real intimidation . Maybe that’s what’s needed? “We won’t touch your junk, but we WILL blow your balls off.”